..... observed that, because of the agreement with dtu in 1971, dtu was to manufacture bidis according to the specification of the assessee-firm, and to bear the trademark of the firm. he also noted that, according to the agreement, the firm could also supply to dtu, the tendu leaves, labels and the tissue papers ..... any business at all. he pleaded that, it was amply clear from the fact that, dtu manufactured bidis only for the appellant firm and under its trademark. he pleaded that, it would not be proper for any court to hold that, those transactions of transfer were legal and to hold that, the ..... the fact that, dtu was to manufacture bidis according to the specifications of the appellant firm, and that, the bidis would be marketed under the trade name of the appellant firm only. the assessments had been framed on dtu on the manufacturing activity and on the appellant firm for the period during ..... of the act provides that, "where an allowance or deduction has been made in the asst. year for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee, and subsequently during any previous year the assessee has obtained whether in cash or in any manner, whatsoever, any amount in ..... respect of such loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof, amount obtained by him or the value of benefit accruing to him, shall be deemed to be .....

1. this is an appeal by the assessee against an order of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals ) pertaining to the assessment year 1987 88. the grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the commissioner of income tax (appeals) erred in sustaining disallowance of repairs and maintenance amounting to rs. 1,07,227. the assessee is engaged in the business of ice cream. during the assessment year under consideration, the assessee purchased a property from noida authority for a sum of rs. 2,14,650 and had spent rs. 1,07,229 on major repairs and renovation which was claimed by the assessee. however, the income-tax officer disallowed the deduction on the ground that the expenditure was capital in nature. however, he allowed depreciation on the same.2. before the commissioner of income-tax (appeals), the assessee presented details of repairs which were also filed before the income-tax officer which show that a sum of rs. 46,072 was spent on building repair, rs. 44,655 on electrical fitting and maintenance and rs. 16,502 on sanitary fitting and maintenance and it was argued that this expenditure is connected with the running of the business and was incurred to keep up the standard and prestige of the restaurant which necessitated repainting, repairs and furnishing. the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) was not satisfied with this explanation and confirmed the order of the income tax officer. learned counsel for the assessee, shri vinod chandiok, c. a., invited our .....

1. these are three appeals by the revenue pertaining to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1982-83 in the case of two assessees belonging to one group. since issues involved in all these appeals are common, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are being disposed of by a single order.2. smt. satti s. vachani was required to deposit a sum of rs. 18,150 on or before 15-3-1979 under the compulsory deposit scheme, 1974 on the basis of estimate filed by the assessee where under the income was estimated at rs. 1,47,000. the assessee however, deposited this amount within the previous year ending on 31-3-1979. for assessment year 1982-83 the assessee was required to deposit a sum of rs. 37,209 on or before 15-3-1982 under the cds. 1974 on the estimated income of rs. 2,37,222. however, the assessee deposited an amount of rs. 31,650 on 31-3-1982. therefore, there was a short-fall of rs. 5,559 in the deposit under the cds. this payment was late by 15 days.3. in the case of smt. kala vachani, the assessee was required to deposit a sum of rs. 26,617 on or before 15-3-1982 under the compulsory deposit scheme, 1974 on the basis of estimate filed by the assessee where under the income was estimated at rs. 1,78,426. however, the assessee deposited rs. 22,800 on 31-3-1982. the payment was short by rs. 3,817 and it was also late by about 15 days. the income-tax officer levied penalty under section 10 in the case of smt. satti s. vachani for assessment year 1979-80 rs. 4.537 and .....

..... if sale by seller is true, then obviously, the purchase by the purchaser is equally true, because, the seller and the buyer have been identified and the goods which was traded in also has been identified. we are therefore of the opinion that, revenue cannot any longer dispute the purchase of the cylinders by the assessee.58. coming to the aspect ..... to pcpl.18. shri agarwal submitted that, cit(a) was confronted with the facts relating to the movement of funds between the various concerns and that, it all related to trading transactions of the assessee. he pleaded that, cit(a) was explained that, the transaction of rs. 59.93 lakhs with gi, a concern of kkg was in connection with sale ..... -87.the other factor, which ao gave weight to was, the disclosure made by pcpl under the amnesty scheme, regarding certain credits standing in the name of m/s ankur trading co. the examination of the bank account, also showed that, shri hari om sharma had encashed several self cheques. ao noted the similarity in the manner of encashing of the ..... . gaurav traders (gt) one of the five concerns, belonged to the father of kkg. the survey yielded a blank register belonging to m/s. shiv loha bhandar (slb), with the mark as pertaining to the year 1982 83. ao examined the details of availability of cylinders with pcpl, which showed 5054 cylinders and 750 da cylinders. this detail showed that, pcpl .....

commissioner's order can be challenged if he decided the case on a different ground from the one proposed by him though assessee had not given any other specific reason for challenging the said order.the question of challenge of jurisdiction of commissioner to decide on a different ground from the one proposed by him could be challenged during the course of arguments, though, no ground has been specifically taken by the assessee. the assessee could raise the point of jurisdiction before the tribunal, which has not taken up before the lower authorities.1. the assessee, a company incorporated outside india, having certain business connection in india, with steel authority of india (sail), has filed this appeal. it is primarily aggrieved by the order of the cit made under section 263 of the act, by which he had set aside the order of the assessing officer, and withdrew the credit of the tax deducted at source by sail.2. the assessee was under contract with sail for supervision, erection and commissioning of bokaro power plant. sail made certain payments under the contract to the assessee and while doing so, retained part of the amount towards the income-tax, from out of the payments credited or paid to the appellant company. sail, therefore, issued a certificate of deduction of tax under section 203 of the act to the assessee. the amount that was deducted towards income-tax was rs. 3,41,896. the assessee filed its return of income at nil, but, in part ii of the form of the .....

1. this appeal arises from the order dated 7th october, 1988 passed by shri v.k. misra, commissioner of income-tax (appeals), meerut. the question to be decided here is what is the extent or range of the material which the assessing officer can consider for the purpose of taking decision in accordance with section 183(b) of the income-tax act, 1961. section 183 as it stood at the relevant time was as under : (a) may determine the tax payable by the firm itself on the basis of the total income of the firm; or (b) if, in his opinion, the aggregate amount of the tax payable by the firm if it were assessed as a registered firm and the tax payable by the partners individually if the firm were so assessed would be greater than the aggregate amount of the tax payable by the firm under clause (a) and the tax which would be payable by the partners individually, may proceed to make the assessment under sub-section (1) of section 182 as if the firm were a registered firm; and, where the procedure specified in this clause is applied to any unregistered firm, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 182 shall apply thereto as they apply in relation to a registered firm.the section is intended to protect the interest of the revenue. the precise point of the controversy is whether the assessing officer, for the purpose of taking decision, can also take into consideration the material of the subsequent assessment years. the assessee says 'no' whereas the assessing officer .....

1. this is an appeal by the assessee against an order of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) -vi, new delhi, pertaining to the assessment year 1987-88.2. the grievance of the assessee in this appeal is against treatment of amount of rs. 21 lakhs received by the assessee from his employers shri k.p. gupta and shri m.p. gupta of indore as compensation in the nature of commission thereby treating the same as income from other sources.3. the assessee is an individual. his source of income are salary, income from house property, business income from m/s. ruby sales corporation, interest and dividends. the assessment of the assessee was completed under section 143(1) on 29-9-1987. however, the same was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 on 19-3-1990. in response to that notice, the assessee filed return on 24-1-1991 declaring an income of rs. 1,69,153. during the reassessment proceedings the assessing officer noticed that the assessee received a sum of rs. 21 lakhs as under, from his employers shri k.p. gupta and shri m.p. gupta, residents of indore for helping them to get nearly rs. 2 crores by way of compensation for their land acquired by the government:-- therefore, a notice was issued calling upon the assessee to explain as to why this income should not be added as income from other sources.4. it will be pertinent to mention here that the assessee was an employee of shri k.p. gupta and shri m.p. gupta on a monthly salary of rs. 500. the assessee undertook .....

1. this appeal is directed against the decision dated january 19, 1989, of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals)-iv, new delhi. this dispute in this case relates to initiation of proceedings under section 147 and the assessment of income from house property let out to air india.2. the assessee-hindu undivided family is the owner of the property no.a-2/26, safdarjang enclave, which is let out to air india. the assessee filed the return of income on the basis of the actual rent received from the air india. assessment was completed by accepting that return under section 143(1) on march 17, 1986. the assessing officer received information that the assessee had received complimentary tickets for visiting abroad from air india as compensation for the low rental of rs. 4,000 per month. proceedings for reopening of the assessment had accordingly been initiated by issue of notice under section 148. the assessee had challenged the validity of the proceedings. however, the assessing officer rejecting the objection made an addition of rs. 1,17,170 to the disclosed income.3. the assessee appealed to the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) who has upheld the validity of the reopening of assessment. however, the addition to the tune of rs. 35,152 alone was sustained by taking the economy fare in respect of three tickets as against the first class fare of rs. 32,434 for five tickets taken by the assessing officer.4. the revenue is not in appeal against the decision of the commissioner .....

1. the revenue has filed these three appeals, objecting to the order of the appellate assistant commissioner, dt. feb. 13, 1987. the objection of the revenue in the asst. years 1963-64 & 1965-66, relate to the imposition of the penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the act. the objection in asst. year 1965-66, relate to the imposition of the penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the act. the common issue raised in all these appeals, relate to the action taken by the assessing officer, under section 155 of the act, consequent to the order of the commissioner, passed under section 264 of the act, in the case of the firm, in which, the assessee, is a partner. the common claim of the revenue, in all the appeals, is that, the aac could not have cancelled the penalty, on the basis, that, action under section 155 of the act, do not permit such an action. the further claim of the revenue was that, the aac had overlooked the fact, the penalties have been imposed consequent upon the setting aside of the orders for penalty by the commissioner under section 264 of the act.2. the brief undisputed facts of the case are described hereunder. for the assessment years 1963-64 & 1964-65, the assessee ought to have filed the returns on june 30, 1963 & 1964, respectively. but, the returns were filed on march 29, 1968 & may 9, 1969, for the asst. years 1963-64 & 1965-66, respectively, i.e., with a delay of 53 & 43 months.the assessments were made under sections 143(1) & 144, dated 31-3-68 and 29-10-69 .....

1. we find it convenient to dispose of these 4 appeals by the assessee for assessment years 1978-79,1979-80,1984-85 and 1985-86 by this consolidated order.2. for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 assessee had not filed any returns of income within the time allowed under section 139(1) or under section 139(4). however, on 31st of march, 1983 returns of loss had been filed as under :-1978-79 rs. 2,53,677.641979-80 rs. 3,48,400.40 on 11-10-1985 assessee filed fresh returns for the two respective assessment years disclosing income as under :-1978-79 rs. 6,0871979-80 rs. 8,080 tax of rs. 2,878 and rs. 3,818 for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 respectively had also been paid and challan attached with the returns of income. since, the returns filed on 11th october, 1985 disclosed taxable income, the assessing officer issued notices under section 148 on 16-5-1986 after recording reasons for the issue of such notices under section 147(a). assessee furnished returns in response to the notices under section 148. these returns, however, did not disclose positive income. the figures of loss disclosed in the returns filed on 31st of march, 1983 were indicated in these returns as under :-1978-79 rs. 2,53,6781979-80 rs. 3,48,400 it was explained before the assessing officer that the returns filed on 11th of october, 1985 disclosing income of rs. 6,087 and rs. 8,080 for the respective assessment years were on the basis of unaudited accounts. however, after the accounts had .....